alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State *ex rel.*Huey v. The Cape Girardeau Court of Common Pleas.

Mandamus to Compel Final Judgment. Where a trial court refuses to act upon a motion, and simply orders the case to he ‘‘dropped from the docket,” this court will issue its writ of mandamus to compel it to proceed to final judgment.

*Mandamus.*

Peremptory Writ Awarded.

*Lewis Brown*for relator.

It was the duty of the court below to proceed to a final disposition of the case. *State v. Newkirk,*49 Mo. 474; *Overall v. Bilis,*38 Mo. 209. No appeal or writ of errpr lies to an order to strike a cause from the docket. The remedy is by mandamus. *Astor v. Chambers,*1 Mo. 192; *Branciscus v. Martin,*9 Mo. 196.

*Hamilton G. Wilson,*respondent, *pro se.*

Sherwood, C. J.

The case of Catherine Huey against Grigg M. Huey, was determined by this court, and the judgments favor of the defendant reversed and the cause remanded. 65 Mo. 689. It appears now, that prior to that cause being submitted to this court, Catherine Huey had died, and that prior to her death she had conveyed her homestead in the land to Thos. M. Huey. No suggestion of the death of Catherine Huey was made in this court, but with that matter the lower court has no concern. Nor was any such suggestion made to the lower court, till after *561Thos. M. Huey was, on his own motion, substituted as party plaintiff in the room and stead of Catherine Huey, commissioners appointed to set off a homestead, and a report of such commissioners filed, setting off' such homestead. After that, the death of Catherine Huey was suggested in the lower court, and it was suggested that such death had occurred as before stated; and it was further suggested that the order substituting. Thos. M. Huey had been erroneously made, because the personal representatives of said Catherine had not been brought before the court, when such substitution took place. After these suggestions, the lower court was moved by Grigg M. Huey, to reject the report of the commissioners, because the judgment of reversal was a nullity, as, in consequence of the death of Catherine Huey, no proper parties were before this court. The death of Catherine Huey, as stated, was admitted. The motion was granted and the report rejected. At the next term a motion was filed by Thos. M. Huey to approve the rejected report, which motion was denied. At a subsequent period, perhaps during the same term, Thos. M. Huey filed another motion to re-refer the order of the court to other commissioners to set aside the homestead of the plaintiff. This motion the court refused to act on, but ordered the cause to be “dropped from the docket.” It is unnecessary to pursue the subject further. Nor is it necessary to determine whether or not Thos. M. Huey was properly substituted as party plaintiff. It is sufficient to say that the duty of the lower court will not have been fully discharged until it shall have made a final disposition and determination of the cause. We, therefore, shall award a peremptory writ.

All concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 30, 2013

s0722

Order 

Clerk

July 30, 2013

146775

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146775

COA: 311906

Oakland CC: 2005-205535-FC

TREMAYNE D. SHELTON, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0847.html[7/21/2015 4:07:53 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-enbz

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0847

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Gina Nakagawa

Address:

200 Shannondale Rd

Winterville, GA, 30683

Email: new.englander1620@gmail.com

Phone: 7063538522

General Comment

To[Whom-It-May-Concern:

My husband and I have worked very diligently since an early age. We have managed to put aside a small amount

 of money for retirement. We understand that we are responsible for our own futures. Many people are like us

 and have worked hard and saved and provided for our children and sometimes grandchildren. We neither need

 nor expect the Department of Labor or any other Federal Government Agency to hold our money for us and dole

 it out as if we were small children needing a benevolent guardian to attend to our affairs. I am sure this is meant

 with all good intentions, but it is the wrong way to handle the situation. Taking away a person's dignity and

 feeling that a person can care for themselves is not helpful. It is not respectful. It is a fiduciary disaster just

 waiting to happen. The Government programs that exist now are running out of money. It is just a matter of time

 before *all* Americans are crushed under an insuperable burden of taxes and debt. I am sure that is not your

 intention, but that is the reality. Allow us to make our own decisions. We are willing to accept the responsibility

 on our shoulders.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases

on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40476 

Summary Calendar

__________________

LARRY L. SMITH,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DALTON G. MEYER, Sheriff; 

RICHARD ROMANO, Captain;

JEFF FLOWERS, Doctor; SAM 

GREEN, Doctor AssistanceNurse; ROBERT BROWN, Jailer;

RICK ELSIK, Jailer.

 Defendant-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. V-92-CV-63

- - - - - - - - - -

December 7, 1995

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is an appeal from the district court's order dismissing

with prejudice appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). He argues that his claim for

the denial of necessary medical treatment was not frivolous and

that the district court abused its discretion in striking his 
No. 95-40476

-2-

amended complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court.

Smith v. Meyer, No. V-92-CV-63 (S.D. Tex. May 5, 1995).

Appellant's motion to file an amended complaint on appeal is

DENIED.

We caution Smith that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions.

To avoid sanctions, Smith is further cautioned to review any

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 392.11 Railroad grade crossings; slowing down required.

Every commercial motor vehicle other than those listed in § 392.10 shall, upon approaching a railroad grade crossing, be driven at a rate of speed which will permit said commercial motor vehicle to be stopped before reaching the nearest rail of such crossing and shall not be driven upon or over such crossing until due caution has been taken to ascertain that the course is clear.

[33 FR 19732, Dec. 25, 1968, as amended at 60 FR 38747, July 28, 1995]
§ 27.75 Federal Highway Administration—highways. ( a ) *New facilities* — ( 1 ) *Highway rest area facilities.* All such facilities that will be constructed with Federal financial assistance shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the accessibility standards referenced in § 27.3(b) of this part.
( 2 ) *Curb cuts.* All pedestrian crosswalks constructed with Federal financial assistance shall have curb cuts or ramps to accommodate persons in wheelchairs, pursuant to section 228 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(F)).
( 3 ) *Pedestrian over-passes, under-passes and ramps.* Pedestrian over-passes, under-passes and ramps, constructed with Federal financial assistance, shall be accessible to persons with a disability, including having gradients no steeper than 10 percent, unless: ( i ) Alternate safe means are provided to enable mobility-limited persons to cross the roadway at that location; or
( ii ) It would be infeasible for mobility-limited persons to reach the over-passes, under-passes or ramps because of unusual topographical or architectural obstacles unrelated to the federally assisted facility.
( b ) *Existing facilities—Rest area facilities.* Rest area facilities on Interstate highways shall be made accessible to persons with a disability, including wheelchair users, within a three-year period after the effective date of this part. Other rest area facilities shall be made accessible when Federal financial assistance is used to improve the rest area, or when the roadway adjacent to or in the near vicinity of the rest area is constructed, reconstructed or otherwise altered with Federal financial assistance.
[44 FR 31468, May 31, 1979, as amended by Amdt. 27-3, 51 FR 19017, May 23, 1986. Redesignated at 56 FR 45621, Sept. 6, 1991, as amended at 79 FR 21405, Apr. 16, 2014]
###### Editorial Note on [Part 40](/current/title-49/part-40?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at [73 FR 33329](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/73-FR-33329), June 12, 2008.

#### § 40.91 What are the cutoff concentrations for oral fluid drug tests?

As a laboratory, you must use the cutoff concentrations displayed in the following table for initial and confirmatory drug tests for oral fluid specimens. All cutoff concentrations are expressed in nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). The table follows:

Table 1 to [§ 40.91](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-40.91)—Oral Fluid Testing Cutoff Concentrations

| Initial test analyte | Initial test cutoff1 | Confirmatory test analyte | Confirmatory test cutoff concentration |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Marijuana (THC)2 | 4 ng/mL3 | THC | 2 ng/mL. |
| Cocaine/Benzoylecgonine | 15 ng/mL | Cocaine Benzoylecgonine | 8 ng/mL. 8 ng/mL. |
| Codeine/Morphine | 30 ng/mL | Codeine Morphine | 15 ng/mL. 15 ng/mL. |
| Hydrocodone/Hydromorphone | 30 ng/mL | Hydrocodone Hydromorphone | 15 ng/mL. 15 ng/mL. |
| Oxycodone/Oxymorphone | 30 ng/mL | Oxycodone Oxymorphone | 15 ng/mL. 15 ng/mL. |
| 6-Acetylmorphine | 4 ng/mL3 | 6-Acetylmorphine | 2 ng/mL. |
| Phencyclidine | 10 ng/mL | Phencyclidine | 10 ng/mL. |
| Amphetamine/Methamphetamine | 50 ng/mL | Amphetamine Methamphetamine | 25 ng/mL. 25 ng/mL. |
| MDMA4/MDA5 | 50 ng/mL | MDMA MDA | 25 ng/mL. 25 ng/mL. |
| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 For grouped analytes (*i.e.,* two or more analytes that are in the same drug class and have the same initial test cutoff): | | | |
| *Immunoassay:* The test must be calibrated with one analyte from the group identified as the target analyte. The cross reactivity of the immunoassay to the other analyte(s) within the group must be 80 percent or greater; if not, separate immunoassays must be used for the analytes within the group. | | | |
| *Alternate technology:* Either one analyte or all analytes from the group must be used for calibration, depending on the technology. At least one analyte within the group must have a concentration equal to or greater than the initial test cutoff or, alternatively, the sum of the analytes present (*i.e.,* with concentrations equal to or greater than the laboratory's validated limit of quantification) must be equal to or greater than the initial test cutoff. | | | |
| 2 An immunoassay must be calibrated with the target analyte. | | | |
| 3 *Alternate technology (THC and 6-AM):* The confirmatory test cutoff must be used for an alternate technology initial test that is specific for the target analyte (*i.e.,* 2 ng/mL for THC, 2 ng/mL for 6-AM). | | | |
| 4 Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). | | | |
| 5 Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA). | | | |

[[88 FR 27643](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/88-FR-27643), May 2, 2023]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1489.html[7/23/2015 11:56:08 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvo-t9gx

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1489

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: D. Derek Henkowski

General Comment

I do not want the government to make decisions on how I use my own monies. Those who trade liberty for

 security deserve neither!
#### In the Matter of Percy W. Barton.

—Order reversed and motion granted, without costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 317 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 112
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 317

                          [Report No. 107-340]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            December 18 (legislative day, December 17), 2001

   Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of Tuesday, December 18, 
2001, providing for consideration or disposition of a bill to provide 
tax incentives for economic recovery.

                                                 House Calendar No. 112

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 317

                          [Report No. 107-340]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

            December 18 (legislative day, December 17), 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### § 29.804 When may the Department reassume?

Except as provided in § 29.805, the Department may not reassume until 30 days after receipt of the notice, the final resolution of the hearing, or the resolution of any appeals, whichever is latest, to provide the Tribe with an opportunity to take corrective action in response to any adverse final ruling.
**Exhibit 24-1**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS** that I, **M. Walter D’Alessio** do hereby appoint John W. Rowe and William A. VonHoene, Jr., or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2007 of Exelon Corporation, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission, and generally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present. 

**M. Walter D’Alessio**

**DATE: February 6, 2008**
-----Original Message-----

From: Trip Whatley [mailto:trip@holmanwhatley.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 7:26 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Reconsider

Please reconsider this rule. What will it really accomplish?

Trip Whatley
From: Reid Juul [mailto:reid.juul@voyafa.com] 

Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 11:16 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Fiduciary

The proposed action by the DOL to identify all agents and representatives as fiduciaries does a disservice 

to the lower and middle class. It generates barriers to doing business with client who have smaller 

accounts and proposed legislation does not provide a clear definition of 'fair compensation' which leaves 

it up to attorneys and litigation to set those parameters. The proposed plan is neither viable, nor fair to 

the industry and those of us who already act in the best interest of our clients.

Reid Juul

Registered Principal

1415 N. Loop W. Suite 740

Houston, Tx. 77008

713-869-3104 office

800-903-8601 toll free

713-869-4852 fax

Email: reid.juul@voyafa.com

Registered Principal of and Securities offered through Voya Financial Advisors, Member SIPC

“Confidentiality Notice: This email transmission and its attachments, if any, are confidential and 

intended only for the use of particular persons and entities. They may also be work product and/or 

protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privileges. Delivery to someone other than the 

intended recipient(s) shall not be deemed to waive any privilege. Review, distribution, storage, 

transmittal or other use of the email and any attachment by an unintended recipient is expressly 

prohibited. If you are not the named addressee (or its agent) or this email has been addressed to you in 

error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and permanently delete the email and its 

attachments.”

Confidentiality Notice: This email transmission and its attachments, if any, are confidential and 

intended only for the use of particular persons and entities. They may also be work product 

and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privileges. Delivery to someone other 

than the intended recipient(s) shall not be deemed to waive any privilege. Review, distribution, 

storage, transmittal or other use of the email and any attachment by an unintended recipient is 

expressly prohibited. If you are not the named addressee (or its agent) or this email has been 

addressed to you in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and permanently 

delete the email and its attachments.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

 

I, William W. Krippaehne, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Fisher Communications, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fisher Communications, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 10, 2004
EXHIBIT 32

TAMIR BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC.

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,
CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,

UNITED STATES CODE)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Tamir Biotechnology, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best
of his knowledge and belief that:



(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended April 30, 2013 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|June 10, 2013          
|-----------------------
|                       
|                       
|/s/ JAMIE SULLEY       
|President              
|                       
|June 10, 2013          
|                       
|                       
|/s/ JOANNE BARSA       
|Chief Financial Officer